Comments by "CynicalBroadcast" (@CynicalBastard) on "Bernie Sanders Suggests Banning Vaping- Massive Damage Control and Media Blackout" video.

  1. Republicans, in effect, also always want to ban things: funny that you people never can mention that, not ever. Because your brain just repeats, parroting things ad nauseum.
    2
  2. Uhh, not surprising this this is a facetious and obviously wrong assessment. Republicans are actually control-freaks too. We've all seen this. Plenty of people don't think this is relevant, however. Because they are dumb.
    1
  3. And every rightist, ever.
    1
  4. Useless no-info-containing video. Boorish.
    1
  5. Seems to be the line from most politicians.
    1
  6. No, it's the same fuckin' thing. facepalm
    1
  7. Red LOL. What now when I [funnily, right?] tell you that I'm not "red" [whatever that means: I'm sure you think that's clever or something...reds under the bed...it's highly unoriginal...see Styx's earlier videos, before the leak of the Kindergarten Satanist Club bullshit, when he decided that "reds under the bed" sounds better than "satanists under the bed". But alas, no. Not a "red". Communism is an eschatology. Nothing more. Orthodox marxists [insurrectionist/"revolutionaries"] misapprehend classical marxism, anyway. But that's neither here nor there [you're probably clueless on the difference]. And Marx excoriated "crude communism" as well, the envious notion of "state communism". But again, that's neither here nor there- it should just be pointed out that while I have a greater comprehension of Marxian theory than you, that doesn't make me a "red" either. Crude communism is warned against because it's nasty. It's vindictive. So...yeah. I wouldn't say I'm anticapitalism either, just anti-crony capitalist [like Marx was]...wholeheartedly, I believe [like Marx did] that capitalism was the only way to accrue the technology and the infrastructure needed to support the masses; but alas, that the masses are abused [by powers that govern them] is, well, part and parcel to pretty much all Marxist theory, and all reactionary theory, as well. There are even fascists whom incorporate marxian theory into their manifest SOP for their groups. This is all to highlight how multivarious the facets are, in theory, of political ends that need to be addressed, and even on "the right-wing", where people slowly are proletarianizing or equally turning reactionary [which is what led to Soviet communism, the reactionary mode of revolution, to usurp the state, as opposed to abolishing it]. Now since I'm not "antistate" I can't be a communist, but alas, I see that communism, in theory, and in practice, is an eschatology, and hypothetical "end-point" to civilization based on a psychological and sociological reading on economies and social cycles. You probably don't fathom this. But again, alas, it's to point out how complex the situation is: so again, can't really be "red", here, "bud". As the linker-Faschismus rapidly facisizes, the tensions will rise, another clash will ensue, but I won't be there. I'm not stupid enough to get involved with such confusions.
    1
  8. No, it is "real" communism. It's just called "crude communism", even by Marx. That's what's funny. You can deny it, but it's actually in evidence. It's insuperable fact.
    1
  9. "Beyond semantics" - sigh Semantics is logic, you fool. Semantics literally is "the logic of words" or in other words "The study or science of meaning in language." So "beyond semantics" is a misnomer, because semantics covers everything...the meaning of those words/terms are DIFFERENT SEMANTICALLY because that's what semantics IS -- the logic of the meaning of words is called semantics -- Fuck.
    1
  10. The end result is the same if you don't do anything about central banking practices...more immigrants, more complaints from ostensible tradcons, more idiocy. You are confused. And also, in action and effect, they are different...but ultimately, even from the perspective of Marx, for example, it's all leading to the same "end effect",...so really, what you're doing is using the same kind of eschatological argument that Marxian theorists make.
    1
  11. centralization is one of the trademarks of these failed systems of government so even there you are making yourself the fool Keep trying, your insinuations are lacking. I wasn't making an argument about centralization, so you're making what is called a non-sequitur argument, which is fallacious. But alas...centralization is a trademark of all forms of government...you gorm. Empire, which has less focus on centralization- even if it is still centralized in the form of political/hierarchical power undertaken, the economic powers are left more so decentralized. The only completely decentralized form of power is anarchic, or communist [Trotsky, the purveyor of "permanent revolution" (which is why not many people like him, even Marxists in his day) promoted decentralized communism]. You are lacking alot of pertinent information and are drawing really overly simple conclusions based on a lack of reasoning and historical knowledge. But alas, even worse still, you are arguing, essentially, for anarchist "society", a non-centralized government is no government at all. A de- centralized government still has it's powered centered in a power structure, but the economic and productive powers of the people, therein the society governed, have more liberty to produce what [and how] they wish. This is the actual instance of reality that you're trying, painfully, to oversimplify.
    1